Whether you are for or against managed admission, or an apologist for a so-called shelter that proudly calls itself "open admission" as it marches pets from the admission desk to the kill room, or an avid no-kill advocate, it's still highly likely that you speak as if "open admission" and "managed admission" shelters are, by definition, two different things.
But that's not true. Shelters that fulfill the legal or contractual requirements of their municipality as to what animals they are required to admit, and that additionally have provisions for emergency intake for animals in immediate need, are open admission shelters.
That doesn't change if they work with pet owners to delay intake until the shelter has room, the animal has had vaccinations, or a foster home opens up. Nor does it change if they instead work with the pet owner to try to help them keep the pet, or to find a home for the pet themselves.
Evidence is mounting that the long list of policies and programs we term "managed" open admission save lives, help pet owners in need, get pets needed veterinary and basic care, and do so without increasing pet abandonment nor diverting intake to other facilities.
That's why those of us who support this sea change in animal sheltering should stop letting advocates of outdated sheltering practices choose the terms that describe it.
Managed open admission works. Unmanaged open admission is irresponsible and inhumane. They are both open admission.